I’m a big fan of involving the supervisor in an aspect of the coaching relationship with one of their employees. While coaching needs to maintain sufficient separation for the “coachee” to be comfortable sharing difficult situations and challenges with the coach, it helps immensely when the supervisor can be looped in at occasional intervals.
Not only does this provide for updates, but it also allows a third party to interject with specific examples of behavior. There are things that the supervisor sees that the coachee may not even recognize they are doing, and, of course, the coach would have no way to know otherwise. With intermittent sessions with the supervisor, future coaching appointments can be adjusted in response to reality.
If an organization is investing in coaching for one of its employees, it’s in everyone’s best interest to have strong outcomes from the experience. Engage the supervisor to have the best chance of that happening.
I was prescribed a round of Prednisolone, a drug that is taken in decreasing doses each day. The instructions read that dosing is variable, and my doctor recommended that I take all six pills at once on the first day, then five the next, etc.
In its own quirky way, it reminded me of an onboarding schedule. You need to front-load your time and information, gradually pulling back on the amount of intervention needed. Hopefully, by the end of the orientation period (which, unlike these pills, should last longer than six days!), the new employee will be equipped to work independently, with only intermittent assistance from you.
Not everything should be distributed in equal doses. Take care in determining which dosage schedule aligns with the need.
A key strategic component of the 1,000-mile Iditarod race is when to rest the dogs. It may be tempting to push them further, but competitive mushers know that the dogs cannot indefinitely sustain a racing pace and must be well-fed and well-rested along the journey.
It seems that not all supervisors take such care. Asking teams to push, push, push is not good for productivity or morale. At some point, those who stay will become burned out, and their output will suffer. Perhaps unrealistic expectations forONE project can be accommodated, but no one can maintain a relentless pace over the long term.
I’m helping coach someone transitioning from an individual contributor role to a leadership role. She made an astute observation that in her previous position, her life revolved around checklists. She was able to write out tasks, cross them off as she accomplished them, and use them to direct her work. But as she is discovering in her new role, there are not always checklists as a leader. She wisely realized this difference and is working “to train her brain” to think differently about her work.
It’s a living example of the difference between a technical problem (where there is a ‘right’ solution) and an adaptive one (where no one solution exists). Leadership is much more intuitive and iterative, and often involves work on things that are never finished or can’t be checked off a list. It can trip up a new leader who has only known success through tasks and tangible outputs. Not only do you have to think differently, but you must also manage your time and priorities in a new way as well.
Consider whether you are in a “checklist” role or whether your time is more appropriately spent on relationships, strategy, and the intangibles that create an effective culture. Without the dopamine hit of crossing something off the list, successful leaders develop internal metrics of success.
A very helpful exercise to conduct with direct reports is what I call an alignment questionnaire. I ask staff to complete four questions and use their answers in future conversations to gain alignment on our priorities, expectations, and style. Later, I refer to what evolves from our conversations for use in the evaluation process.
The questions are as follows:
How do you conceptually see your job and your role in this organization? One way to frame this is to pretend you are presenting this to the board to explain your unit. Another way to look at it is to acknowledge that if you could be cloned, you could keep both of “you” busy in this job. Since there is only one of you, what parts are most important? This can be shared through a model, story, or statement —anything that helps me understand your philosophy on how you define your work (in writing, one page maximum).
A maximum of five specific priorities for the next year. These can be your priorities or priorities for your office, but absolutely no more than five specific items.
Part of my role as your supervisor is to help you facilitate change and to help you be successful. What do you want me to know in this respect?
What ideas are in the incubation stage?
What is your key strength as a unit/department?
What needs do you have (now and in the future)?
What challenges/barriers do you face?
What do you need from me?
What seeds do you want me to plant to support you/your work?
What advice would you give me to help me be an effective supervisor for you?
Many productive conversations have been stimulated by these questions, the first one in particular. I can recall several situations where the employee had one idea of what the job was (e.g., individual ombudsperson/problem-solving role) and I had another (e.g., systemic changes and data sharing). Our conversations led to alignment and employee success going forward.
Whether you do it formally or informally, I recommend that you spend time aligning philosophy with your direct report staff. The stars will shine more brightly if you do.
Originally published in modified form on January 10, 2013
It’s a struggle for supervisors when an employee has a good attitude and makes genuine efforts to do the work, yet still doesn’t meet expectations. It becomes even more of an issue when the employee has been coached and still can’t make the grade.
Too often, these staff members are allowed to continue in their roles because they are liked and because it’s always hard to discipline someone who is trying.
But being well-intentioned isn’t the job. You are not paying someone a full salary to accomplish half the work. If you must continually monitor or revise their output, or if improvements aren’t evident, it’s time to acknowledge a major problem, no matter how nice they are. Intent isn’t performance.
In my class, we were discussing ways to build camaraderie and a positive culture without spending much time or money. This is especially important for organizations with hourly employees who may be unable to participate in out-of-office activities without clocking out.
Studies have shown that informality fosters candor and connectedness, both important qualities for your team. Some ideas for quick ways to interject occasional levity at work:
Have different employees pick their favorite song to start the day
Start with a crazy question, with the winner getting a goofy prize (e.g., the number of feet in the household [dogs = 4])
Have a potluck just with snacks
Hold office pools: for sports, for when the first snow will fall, for when the first 90-degree day occurs, etc.
Have taste tests: Red Vines vs Twizzlers, Pepsi vs Coke, etc.
Post pet photos and guess their owner
Hold a donation drive for a charity
Have employees wear shirts from their favorite team, color, band, etc.
Bring in coffee and donuts to enjoy during morning break
Pick a color, and go crazy with it: (e.g., wear orange, bring in orange foods, use orange in emails)
Play silly games — one office rolls balls down the hall into a box in the boss’s office, again for a “fabulous” prize
Share some of the many different flavors of Oreos or M&Ms and rate them
Play Bingo to see when jargon or catch phrases are used
Repeatedly share 1 can of pop with another person — have a conversation and build the relationship
I’m sure you (and your team) can add many more ideas to the list. The activities may sound silly, but fostering some connectedness is nothing to laugh at.
If you want different behaviors from people, watch what you tolerate.
We know this from raising pets. If you allow that cut puppy to jump on you, that big dog will jump on you, too. If you put up with indiscriminate barking in the beginning, chances are you’ll have a barker for life.
But we sometimes fail to make that connection with people and allow others to continue with behaviors that should have been stopped when they first started.
We tolerate:
Someone who dominates at every meeting, instead of initially establishing group ground rules
Someone who never speaks up, instead of calling on them and prompting input
People turning in late work, instead of creating consequences for doing so
Inappropriate remarks from others, instead of calling them out on them
Others who fail to carry their weight on projects, instead of holding them accountable
People who are perpetually late by waiting, instead of proceeding without them
Our actions (or inactions) teach others how to treat us. The longer you allow a behavior you don’t like to continue, the harder it is to course-correct. Stop tolerating and speak up.
There is no perfect candidate, leaving us to hire someone who has some limitations. Ideally, some of those moments of hesitation will display themselves in the interview or reference check process, allowing the hiring manager to weigh the pros and cons before making an offer.
Too often, supervisors “hope” that their fears will be unrealized and everything will turn out well. They don’t want to bring up negatives, so they don’t say anything to the candidate/new employee. A better way to facilitate that process is to be very candid up front with the candidate about the weaknesses others saw in the interview and the concerns you have. It will give you shorthand to quickly refer to the initial “these are the hesitations” conversation you had at the start, allowing you to nip the behavior in the bud as soon as it is observed on the job.
Pay attention to your gut and be clear about your misgivings. It’s much easier to heed red flags and take precautions than it is to drag someone out of the water.
A supervisor of new staff always feels the tension between answering questions that the staff member should be able to figure out on their own and giving them the specifics they seek. It’s the same tug that occurs when deciding whether to say something and course correct or let minor things go. Both require a judgment call to determine if it’s the dreaded micromanaging or a necessary intervention to align behavior with expectations.
I am reminded of the quote by Pope John XXIII: “See everything, overlook a great deal, improve a little.” I think his mantra serves as a guide to an overall approach as to when to interject and when to let the staff member stumble. The supervisor needs to have a pulse on the big picture and whether or not the essential work is being completed, but it is appropriate to overlook some bumps along the way. As the staff member becomes more experienced, the supervisor should wean themself from answering as many questions or providing direct guidance. If the dependence continues, it’s back to square one with training and expectations.
Don’t fall into the trap of being the permanent go-to person for problem-solving or answers. It’s ok to pull back and let them flounder.
